I personally like the 2hb and im currently learning it but the 1hb is really nice too its just sometimes hard to get set up correctly. Oh and im learning 2hb for serve returns using just 1hb for serve returns can get a little frustrating lol but both is good just depends on your own personally refrences so go out and try both of them =)

Bingo, you are WRONG again.
The reason the 2hbh is used more often in pro tennis is because all the little kids who were learning tennis as little kids could not swing a 1hbh with control and power.
As the little kids grew up, they stuck with their 2hbh's, not changing to 1hbh like Sampras.
Just like they stuck with their baseline game, choosing not to come to net unless forced to move forwards.
Why adopt anything new, have to relearn new things, when what you're already doing sorta works. Works for #1 anyways.

DBH -- Positves:
-- Stable
-- can tackle most types of ball (incl. jumping/kicking balls)
DBH -- Negatives:
-- Requires more running to get in position (though this could be debatable)
-- not as cool as SHB (again )

DBH -- Positves:
-- Stable
-- can tackle most types of ball (incl. jumping/kicking balls)
DBH -- Negatives:
-- Requires more running to get in position (though this could be debatable)
-- not as cool as SHB (again )

Click to expand...

I think two handed backhands are cuter...and I have a one handed backhand 0.o

Bingo, you are WRONG again.
The reason the 2hbh is used more often in pro tennis is because all the little kids who were learning tennis as little kids could not swing a 1hbh with control and power.
As the little kids grew up, they stuck with their 2hbh's, not changing to 1hbh like Sampras.
Just like they stuck with their baseline game, choosing not to come to net unless forced to move forwards.

Click to expand...

I know alot of people want to believe that. And that's the popular version for onehanded backhand proponents to believe instead of the truth, that the two hander is taught more because it is a better shot for most and better for baseliners and coaches want to teach it.

If there was any truth to your version, you would be able to explain how all the pro's in the wood racquet days were able to play with onehanded backhands with much much heavier racquets instead of referencing sampras or edberg that were one of the few that did switch but only because the coach was old school and wanted them to play a serve and volley game.

Kids being to weak to use a onehander has nothing to do with the domination of two handed players. It's the power baseline game that's played today that's superior to serve and volleyers, or onehanders trying to play baseline.

I know alot of people want to believe that. And that's the popular version for onehanded backhand proponents to believe instead of the truth, that the two hander is taught more because it is a better shot for most and better for baseliners and coaches want to teach it.

If there was any truth to your version, you would be able to explain how all the pro's in the wood racquet days were able to play with onehanded backhands with much much heavier racquets instead of referencing sampras or edberg that were one of the few that did switch but only because the coach was old school and wanted them to play a serve and volley game.

Kids being to weak to use a onehander has nothing to do with the domination of two handed players. It's the power baseline game that's played today that's superior to serve and volleyers, or onehanders trying to play baseline.

And if you mean Roger Federer, than he himself acknowledged that he was a natural baseliner, and that his backhand was often picked by his opponents as his weakness.

In short, in the modern tennis where topspin-heavy baseline exchanges are the norm and the net play is an exception (which used to be the opposite), 2HBH is superior because of its stability, reliability and higher possible contact point.

Federer won 16 majors not because of his backhand, but in spite of it. He used his other weapons, namely the serve and the forehand, to win them. In a few years from now after he retires, there will be zero one-handers in the top 10.

I know alot of people want to believe that. And that's the popular version for onehanded backhand proponents to believe instead of the truth, that the two hander is taught more because it is a better shot for most and better for baseliners and coaches want to teach it.

If there was any truth to your version, you would be able to explain how all the pro's in the wood racquet days were able to play with onehanded backhands with much much heavier racquets instead of referencing sampras or edberg that were one of the few that did switch but only because the coach was old school and wanted them to play a serve and volley game.

Kids being to weak to use a onehander has nothing to do with the domination of two handed players. It's the power baseline game that's played today that's superior to serve and volleyers, or onehanders trying to play baseline.

And if you mean Roger Federer, than he himself acknowledged that he was a natural baseliner, and that his backhand was often picked by his opponents as his weakness.

In short, in the modern tennis where topspin-heavy baseline exchanges are the norm and the net play is an exception (which used to be the opposite), 2HBH is superior because of its stability, reliability and higher possible contact point.

Federer won 16 majors not because of his backhand, but in spite of it. He used his other weapons, namely the serve and the forehand, to win them. In a few years from now after he retires, there will be zero one-handers in the top 10.

Okay, I'm a one-handed player, and I went out to the park and hit some two-handers for myself, and this is how I felt.

It was a different experience to say the least. It wasn't hard to hit by any means, but it was difficult to hit it hard on a regular basis. Maybe my body rotation was just poor because I'm not used to turning my body so much off that wing, but when I did get a good crack at it, it was a solid ball. Low balls were a real struggle, I had no choice but to slice those right back. Balls that came in about waist height were just lovely, I could crank those all over the court. Balls up near my shoulder weren't too bad, I really didn't have to swing up to clear the net and hitting flat balls off that side from that high was pretty easy. Wide balls were also hard to hit, I had to slice those back. Generating lots of topspin was a lot more difficult than with my one-hander. I actually found it easier to disguise my slice because my right hand was in the continental grip, I could set up like I was gonna hit a flat ball and then just move my left hand up and slice the ball. Once I got used to it, it was rather easy to hit consistent rally balls, and was a very repeatable motion.

Again, you won't learn anything new from reading my review. 2HBH is a stable, consistent rally shot that's easy to learn and easy to repeat, and will be your best option if you want to be an Agassi-type player, hit hard, flat, and consistent, and grind your opponent down from the baseline. 1HBH will be better if you like a shot that can give you lots of spin, lots of easy power and reach, and is a good shot for people who like mixing up their games.

Also..your arm will get tired in long rallies with the 1hb...especially if you are coming over the top.

I always found 2hb more unstable. Footwork is complicated since if your right foot is forward (for a righty) your light hand is dominent but if your left foot is forward, you end up in an open position and your left arm is dominent.

Some dumb people on here.....
2hbh was popularized by one PanchoSegura, who had a great 2hbh.
2hbh was frowned upon back then, seeming less manly, gentlemanly, and sporting.
The acceptance of 2hbh, led by one CrissyEverts, during the reign of McMillian in doubles, occurred around the mid 70's.
Every pro now started AFTER the mid '70's. So they were taught the by then accepted 2hbh WHEN THEY WERE TINY LITTLE WEAK KIDS!
Nadal is numero uno. He uses 2hbh.
Also the women's numero uno.

I actually use both depending on the situation, I find the 2HBH is better to use when dealing with shots that are very deep and going to land just a few inches from the baseline, so I use it instead of half-volley every shot with 1HBH, and I can use it today with kick serve or high topsin balls. But if a shot lands short, even to the smallest degree, or if it's just a normal rally I use the 1HBH because there is just more variet and you can go for shots with insane angles, plus I find more power in 1HBH. Anyone else use both, it really helps because your opponent never knows what to expect

20 years ago I would have said one hander it looks cooler. Today two hands seems the better way to go since the players are taller so reach is not a problem, and faster to get the two hander ready and be in position. The one hander is still the better shot to hit on the run out of position than the two hander. Serve returns the two hander is better but I like the one hander on mid court balls with no pace.

The OP's assumption is that everyone needs to embrace one or the other. I'm with AhmedD in that I believe that there's plenty of room for both in anyone's arsenal, along with a good slice. In the same fashion that it takes extra time to learn good all-court skills to become a more complete player, it also requires more time and effort to learn both topspin backhands, but they're both potentially quite useful.

Anyone who thinks otherwise ought to pause and figure out whether you're more in favor of one style because you couldn't learn the other. No crime if that's the case. A vast majority of players have a stronger aptitude for one style over the other. We're funny like that.

The power baseline game... yeah, okay. Although I can swing a racquet rather hard on short notice with a 2hbh, my racquet speed is much greater with my one-hander. Hands down, no contest, blah-blah-blah... and I've been using the two-hander for most of my life. I only learned a good working one-hander a couple of years ago (remember that snippet about our individual aptitudes?) and the only downside with it for me is the extra fraction of a second that it takes me to put it on the ball. For short notice, the slice and the two-hander have me covered.

Hit two-handed on both sides if you have to, right? Whatever works better for you. Carry on...

Every pro now started AFTER the mid '70's. So they were taught the by then accepted 2hbh WHEN THEY WERE TINY LITTLE WEAK KIDS!

Click to expand...

Federer never used a twohander. I'm sure there are many onehanders who never used a twohander. Was federer even able to play as a kid because he was too weak? Or was federer one of the 'tough' kids? lol. To blame the dominance of twohanders on weak kids who are too weak to use a onehander is pretty laughable to me.

federer never learned 2HBH cause he can't use that stroke for his life. But there has to be some advantage to 1HBH is one of the most famous players in the Open Era, Sampras, found it to be better than a 2HBH.

For those that want to make really looooooooooong, booooooooooring rallies, the 2HBH is great. But for people that wanna make an exciting net play game, the 1HBH is the way to go

.
For those that want to make really looooooooooong, booooooooooring rallies, the 2HBH is great. But for people that wanna make an exciting net play game, the 1HBH is the way to go

Click to expand...

It does not really matter if you have a one or two as far as net game.. Watch todd martin clips.. Although i do admit all the best serve and volleyers were onehanders. And the best baseliners seem to be twohanders.

It does not really matter if you have a one or two as far as net game.. Watch todd martin clips.. Although i do admit all the best serve and volleyers were onehanders. And the best baseliners seem to be twohanders.